Balloon Juice’s John Cole deflates any sense of morality I can only imagine he once had. I don’t read him much and never have consistently. He cites my protest, and those of others, of the sexual McCarthyism in which the Left is currently engaged and compares it to a post I did on Glenn aka GiGi Greenwald some time ago, mentioning his homosexuality.

The problem for Cole is that Greenwald wasn’t closeted – and that’s even assuming a sitting Senator also in question, was, or is. Not one shred of evidence or acknowledgment in that regard exists. Yet, Greenwald was and is homosexual based upon his own public acts and words. That isn’t outing someone, whether someone doesn’t like me or another joking about it is immaterial to the point.

And when self-professed holier than thou jerk-offs who lie, or create myths to support the genuinely disturbed and disturbing sexual McCarthyism of their unprincipled colleagues, as I said, I’ll just assume they are genuine, even if closeted, c***s******, too.

Apparently, even though I disagree with the outing of Larry Craig, the fact that I also recognize that the GOP uses gay bashing and homophobic hysteria for their own political purposes makes me one of them dirty ‘C***S******.”

Quite a change I have gone through in just a few short years- ardent conservative to homo liberal. Life is, if nothing else, interesting. These ‘conservatives’ are just making voting for the Democrats this November easier and easier. Couple more salvos like this and I might not even have to hold my nose when I vote for the donks, and may even have to slap up a Byrd bumper sticker on the car.

Really, though. I don’t know how you can read that and not see the overt homophobia and the sickness that is Riehl’s mindset. I am sure Dobson and Rove love it. But can we please end the charade- conservative oppostion to Gay marriage and homosexual rights may be, in the minds of a few, about protecting traditional marriage. But in the minds of many, it is just like Dan Riehl- a knee-jerk reaction to fear.

And by the way- if anyone wants to know whether I am gay or straight or bi or whatever, the answer is simple- it is none of your God damned business. Answering that question plays their game, not mine, and if I refute the charge that I am gay, it sends the message that I think there is something wrong with being gay.

That was an older brother of mine, John. He’s dead and, yes, he was Gay. You want to know how he died? He died alone, probably of aids for all I know and probably in a San Francisco flop house living on the government’s dime. I say probably because it was the last address I ever had for him from letters exchanged, not having seen the boy/man since I was about 15.

And you know why he died alone? Not because he was Gay. He died that way because of small minded assholes who think that being Gay in America is a crime. And who is perpetuating that stereotype and trying to benefit from it, today, Cole? Me? Because I can mock someone whether they are straight or gay, because the orientation has no bearing on how I treat someone, one way or the other?

***

And don’t you dare try to turn this into another prime example of intolerance on the Right, when clearly it is not.

It is but another new low low in the all time record book of disgusting liberal tactics which have nothing more noble as their goal than a power grab. And your unmoral defense of it is a corollary to its vulgar and ugly intent.

This is not the Right’s shame, no matter how you’ll try to make it so. It is the Left’s disgrace. I called you a c***S***** because of the weak-kneed lip service you are providing to your most repugnant cronies on the Left. Whether or not you derive some sexual gratification from giving them that service, I couldn’t care less.

Balloon Juice? Give me a break. Don’t look now, John, but I think the balloon exploded and the juice is running from your lips. Here’s hoping you enjoyed, it c***s*****.

All I did was half-jokingly call you a name you earned. Congratualtions, obviously, it was well deserved.

Read the whole, sad, deplorable post. Apparently he can’t be a bigot because he had a brother that was gay, so when he writes something sick and offensive and attacks Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan for being gay, it is just because he, unlike everyone else, feels comfortable ‘joking’ about everyone.

A regular humanitarian, an Archie Bunker, this guy- the basest of the conservative ‘base.’

OMG, How could I have never seen it before—the box wine should have been my first clue!

I have seen a few episodes of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and I am reasonably sure that the fact I drink box wine would work to prove that I am NOT gay. I will have to ask all my friends tonight at the weekly assless chaps meeting Sports Bar.

But can we please end the charade- conservative oppostion to Gay marriage and homosexual rights may be, in the minds of a few, about protecting traditional marriage

First, many/most Dems, including their Presidential candidate have come out publicly in opposition to legalizing gay marriage, so cut the crap laying this all on the door of the Republicans. Many devout Christians are in the Dem party.. not just in black churches either.

Second, most who oppose gay marriage, don’t ‘hate’ or want to bash gays (my opinion) any more than they hate or want to bash gamblers, womanizers, or others who engage in behavior which they may find morally objectionable. They have sincere moral objections to this behavior.

Third, I think Riehl’s distinction is a valid one, assuming it’s true that Greenwald is openly sexual as he claims. In that situation, he couldn’t be ‘outed’, as he has made no secret about his sexuality.

Third, I think Riehl’s distinction is a valid one, assuming it’s true that Greenwald is openly sexual as he claims. In that situation, he couldn’t be ‘outed’, as he has made no secret about his sexuality.

I proposed to my wife (of 16 years now!) half-lit on a 5-liter wine box of White Grenache.

And lemme guess- she drank one too, said yes, and has never been the same since!

Third, I think Riehl’s distinction is a valid one, assuming it’s true that Greenwald is openly sexual as he claims. In that situation, he couldn’t be ‘outed’, as he has made no secret about his sexuality.

First, many/most Dems, including their Presidential candidate have come out publicly in opposition to legalizing gay marriage, so cut the crap laying this all on the door of the Republicans. Many devout Christians are in the Dem party.. not just in black churches either.

For once, Darrell is right. That may be the 5th or 6th sign of the appocolypse. Dems definitely play the hypocrite on this issue. Clinton passed DOMA as one of his weasly triangulation efforts. One of my big problems with Dems is that they have no balls even when they know they are completely correct and moral in their beliefs.

Second, most who oppose gay marriage, don’t ‘hate’ or want to bash gays (my opinion) any more than they hate or want to bash gamblers, womanizers, or others who engage in behavior which they may find morally objectionable. They have sincere moral objections to this behavior.

This still begs the question any REAL conservative would ask: Is it the place of the Federal Government to legislate morallity? Shouldn’t the People have the right to determine this in their own private lives?

Second, most who oppose gay marriage, don’t ‘hate’ or want to bash gays (my opinion) any more than they hate or want to bash gamblers, womanizers, or others who engage in behavior which they may find morally objectionable. They have sincere moral objections to this behavior.

Of course the problem is that barring marriage for gay couples stop absolutely zero behavior. It just makes life more difficult for a percentage of America’s couples.

I have huge moral objections to fundamentalist Christians brainwashing their children into their ‘faith’. I wouldn’t ever presume to advocate they be denied their right to do it.

Ok, I mistyped. Openly ‘homosexual’, not ‘openly sexual’. But are you still insisting that your comparison between Riehl’s “outing” of Greenwald who (apparently?) openly claims to be homosexual, is analogous to outing Larry Craig who chose to keep his preferences private? Do you still stand by that?

Dan Riehl seems to spend alot of time thinking and writing about c*** s******. I wonder why that is?

Third, I think Riehl’s distinction is a valid one, assuming it’s true that Greenwald is openly sexual as he claims.

No, Riehl is full of shit. I have no idea what part he played if any, but I do remember that at one point a few months ago right-wing bloggers were posting about Greenwald’s background and did believe that they were outing him (with details from a lawsuit where he admitted to being gay). It was only from Greenwald’s response that they found out that his homosexuality wasn’t a secret. Their intent was obvious, there was no distinction except in the outee’s reaction.

For once, Darrell is right. That may be the 5th or 6th sign of the appocolypse. Dems definitely play the hypocrite on this issue. Clinton passed DOMA as one of his weasly triangulation efforts. One of my big problems with Dems is that they have no balls even when they know they are completely correct and moral in their beliefs.

I gotta admit, it’s an issue that I don’t really care about.

Although the more I hear Darrell spout off about it, the more I want to shove gay marriage down his throat. So I’m not sure if that’s a good motivator or not.

I would agree though, that by trying to have it both ways the Democrats in fact actually reinforce the Republican position. They ought to just try to shove gay marriage down Darrell’s throat like my gut wants to do.

Ok, I mistyped. Openly ‘homosexual’, not ‘openly sexual’. But are you still insisting that your comparison between Riehl’s “outing” of Greenwald who (apparently?) openly claims to be homosexual, is analogous to outing Larry Craig who chose to keep his preferences private? Do you still stand by that?

Look, it’s obvious, isn’t it? Glenn Greenwald is a bad person and is gay, and being gay is bad, so it’s OK to call him gay. On the other hand, Larry Craig is not a bad person, so whether or not he’s gay, you can’t say he is because that would be an insult.

Second, most who oppose gay marriage, don’t ‘hate’ or want to bash gays (my opinion) any more than they hate or want to bash gamblers, womanizers, or others who engage in behavior which they may find morally objectionable. They have sincere moral objections to this behavior.

When you say “most” and “they” are you speaking about yourself using the “some say” technique? What’s your opinion?

It seems to me your hiding behind “them.” If you oppose equal rights for gay people, you should be proud of that and speak of it loudly.

Glenn Greenwald, to my knowledge, was not openly gay. If I am wrong about that, I stand corrected. Even if he was openly gay, I fail to see why the sexual orientation of a blogger refutes his postions on terrorism and the law, and I fail to see why a mean-spirited attack on him that borders on obsession is excusable.

I also think, as I have stated repeatedly, that I think it is wrong that Craig was outed, just as I felt it was wrong that Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation was brought up in 2004. However, the reason it is a scandal to the right wing bloggers that he was outed is not so much that they view his privacy as important, but thaqt they are worried that it may impact the election. The Democrats don’t care that Craig is gay, they would care that he is gay and closeted and voting on anti-gay measures. The Republicans, on the other hand, care that he is gay BECAUSE they have a problem (publically, for political reason, but not privately, as the gay-bashing is just a charade) with him being gay and because they worry how the base, whipped into a frenzy about the threat of teh gay, might vote.

Was it wrong to out Craig if he is gay? Yes.
Was it wrong to claim he was gay if he is not? Yes.
Is it wrong for Republicans to act like being gay is wrong and the root of all evil? Yes.
Are some on the left being hypocrites when they out closeted gays? Yes, but not nearly as hypocritical as the GOP who hides the fact that many of their members and staff are gay and then spends millions of dollars and thousands of hours advancing anti-gay legislation.
Is it the fault of the GOP that being ‘gay’ is somehow seen as a smear. In large part, yes.

I assure you, I do not find these positions to be contradictory in the least.

I agree with Darrell in as much as many in the gay community seem to think that the Dems are fantastic w.r.t. “gay rights” and the GOP is terrible. The fact is everyone has, to some degree, let us down (or worse).

However, I want to challenge this oft told tale:

Second, most who oppose gay marriage, don’t ‘hate’ or want to bash gays (my opinion) any more than they hate or want to bash gamblers, womanizers, or others who engage in behavior which they may find morally objectionable. They have sincere moral objections to this behavior.

My position has always been that I don’t care if you hate me or object to my “lifestyle”. I’m never going to change your mind nor do I want to try. Just let me live my life and vice versa. I think there are many people of all political perusions who fall into this category. They are not “haters” or “bashers”. However, when you start tinkering with the Federal Constitution or a State’s Constitution that deprives me of my civil rights and/or you get out and VOTE for these things, then that is quite a different story than the Democratic Party’s frequent benign neglect.

You know what? I find the behavior of most of the Republican representatives to be sincerely morally objectionable. Their behavior is clearly affecting my marriage. I think I’d like to pass a constitutional amendment forbidding “marriage or the incidents thereof” to be given to Republicans.

Does that make me a hater? After all, it’s a choice, isn’t it? They could just become Democrats and then get married, you know?

RE: Outing – I’m not a big fan, especially as people being pulled from the closet make miserable role models. However, people who are actively supporting anti-gay legislation (GOP or Dem) and make anti-gay public pronouncements are dangerous hypocrites and therefore fair game.

Glenn Greenwald, to my knowledge, was not openly gay. If I am wrong about that, I stand corrected. Even if he was openly gay, I fail to see why the sexual orientation of a blogger refutes his postions on terrorism and the law, and I fail to see why a mean-spirited attack on him that borders on obsession is excusable.

Essentially, after the wingnuts spent a whole gloating about their discovery of Greenwald’s orientation, Greenwald made a post that said “look, I’ve never hidden it, so what’s the big deal.” The fact that they did not, in hindsight, “out” him really doesn’t change the fact that they intended to out him.

It’s hard to read posts like this one and this one and not feel like Darrell is denying the existence of a pretty clear anti-homosexual perspective that’s out there.

Dems definitely play the hypocrite on this issue. Clinton passed DOMA as one of his weasly triangulation efforts.

I’m not sure about that. Actually, although most liberals or progressives are for gay marriage, most Democrats are still against gay marriage, especially Southern Democrats, so I’m not about to assume anything about Clinton’s ‘real’ position here, nor will I condemn him for taking a position that a majority of Democrats would take.

It’s hard to read posts like this one and this one and not feel like Darrell is denying the existence of a pretty clear anti-homosexual perspective that’s out there.

He’s not, in fact he has said quite the opposite.

He has stated that “most people” agree that it is not safe to send kids camping with gays, and therefore, public wariness of gays is perfectly alright.

He himself, of course, has never stated that He thinks this, but you know, that’s Darrell. Actually describing his own view and taking onwership ofif would require at least a molecule of integrity on his part.

Note that the really loathsome thing about Riehl’s post on Greenwald was that he SNEERED at Greenwald for being gay (up to and including the implication that most gays are child molesters). I’d say he was being outrageously dishonest to say that he just MENTIONED Greenwald’s homosexuality, if it wasn’t that — from what I’ve seen of him — he lacks the brains needed by any conscious organism to be deliberately dishonest. As with Darrell, actually arguing with this buffoon is just a waste of your time, John.

The Democrats don’t care that Craig is gay, they would care that he is gay and closeted and voting on anti-gay measures. The Republicans, on the other hand, care that he is gay BECAUSE they have a problem (publically, for political reason, but not privately, as the gay-bashing is just a charade) with him being gay

Actually, although most liberals or progressives are for gay marriage, most Democrats are still against gay marriage

Actually, the Pew report doesn’t say that. I don’t know if we can get an accurate breakdown of (D) identification in the various subgroups, but given that you find this in the report (under the definition of Liberal Democrats):

BASIC DESCRIPTION: This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999. Liberal Democrats now comprise the largest share of Democrats. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration.

…it could very well be a majority of Democrats favor gay marriage. I can’t say with assurance either way.

The Other Steve:
I gotta admit, it’s an issue that I don’t really care about.

Whether or not same-sex marriage is made legal one make an iota of difference in our culture. Even symbolically, it is weak.

However, ever since I was a boy, it burned my soul everytime some group of bullies tried to belittle and ostracize anyone outside some bullshit definition of “the Normal”. Everyone knows that the bullies never stop until someone slams a fist into their face.

I defend gay right, not cuz I have sympathies for the rug-munchers and rump-rangers of the world; I defend gay rights because We The People have all rights not granted to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States. I defend gay rights cuz if we don’t stop the bullies, they will interpret apathy as encouragement and whatever peccadillo you or I have will be next on their list. America will NEVER be moral ENOUGH for the Religious Right.

Oh yes, her marketing of Coors beer to gays was just a cover for being gay.

After graduating from Colorado College, Cheney went to work as a gay community liaison for Coors Brewing Company, where she was instrumental in ending a 20-year boycott by the gay community of that company. Cheney left Coors in 2000 to work with her father and the Bush campaign. In 2002, Mary Cheney served on the advisory board of the Republican Unity Coalition, a gay-straight alliance formed within the Republican party to help increase tolerance within the party for gays and lesbians, and others.

Cheney currently receives a paycheck of $2,776 every two weeks, for her role as the head of her father’s campaign team. Mary Cheney remains close to her family by all accounts, and has been off limits to reporters throughout the same-sex marriage debate.

I felt it was wrong that Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation was brought up in 2004.

Do you really want to open up that discussion again? Kerry and Edwards didn’t out Mary Cheney. She previously held a job as GLBT co-ordinator for a major corporation, is it possible to be more out than that? When your opponent’s party has made gay-bashing their primary GOTV strategy, why is it wrong to point out they don’t apply that same homophobia to their own children?

What’s ironic is that, at the end of the day, when same-sex marriage is finally legalized (and you’re a fool if you think it will never happen), it’s the Republicans who will earn the lion’s-share of the credit for making it happen. Gay marriage was always a left-wing agenda item, the sort of thing mainstream Dems would never touch with a ten-foot pole. The only reason it’s on the national agenda is because the GOP decided to exploit it as a wedge issue. This was undoubtedly good politics in the short term, but in the long term people who never would have thought about it otherwise are going to be like “Well, heck yeah, why shouldn’t everyone be equal?” So thanks for that, GOP.

They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration.

I call shenaningans.

Very few people in this country are “pro-immigration”. What most progressives are, is “realistic immigration”. Nobody’s in favor of an open border; however, many of us understand the infeasibility of trying to toss out 11 mill illegals all at once. So, maybe if “pro” means “anti immediate mass-chuck”, then OK. Otherwise, nobody wants undocumented Canucks serving them Whoppers and fries.

…nor will I condemn him for taking a position that a majority of Democrats would take.

I would. I smoke, I drink, I like porn (which conflicts with my distain for fake boobies), and I gamble (poker really). I know I am on the hit list of every moralist left or right. If I don’t stand for other peoples rights, then mine will be forfeit.

FYI, it’s pretty tootin’ obvious from John’s choice of words that he knows Mary Cheney wasn’t closeted. That still doesn’t mean he can’t believe it was rude to bring it up.

In any event, the whole incident goes down in history right next to Coretta Scott King’s funeral – Republicans trying to score political points by accusing Democrats of, horror of horrors, trying to score political points.

That’s just how closeted homosexual Republican bloggers ask each other out on a date.

After they eat dinner at a manly sports bar and maintain a large interpersonal distance in public, Dan and John will retire to their fabulously decorated apartment to compare assless chaps (chaps are assless by definition, by the way) and their Cindy Sheehan tattoos.

Next week, expect an angry rant by Jonah Goldberg about Jeff Goldstein’s weak support for anti-bestiality sodomy laws (this is a marriage proposal).

The only thing Kerry did wrong was being a bit fuzzy in his wording and not pointing out that she was entirely public about her lesbianism and that her (otherwise appalling) parents did not feel the slightest bit ashamed of her — and shouldn’t. Kerry, however, being Kerry, managed to do the whole thing clumsily enough for the eager GOP spin doctors to pounce — in part because he didn’t quite want to take that step of actually saying publicly that he thought homosexuality was not a significant sin (or explaining why he thought it wasn’t). Kerry was no lout, but this slipup of his was just further proof that the man is not nearly as Swift as his Boat.

After they eat dinner at a manly sports bar and maintain a large interpersonal distance in public, Dan and John will retire to their fabulously decorated apartment to compare assless chaps (chaps are assless by definition, by the way) and their Cindy Sheehan tattoos.

Next week, expect an angry rant by Jonah Goldberg about Jeff Goldstein’s weak support for anti-bestiality sodomy laws (this is a marriage proposal).

This is DAMN funny. The tattoo line caused a me to deposit a fine mist of Coke on my keyboard. It’ll be only hours before my “enter” key gets stuck. Thanks, jerk.

Actually, it does. Of course, you’re free to run the numbers yourself, but I have; I’m pretty familiar with it.

It must be in a different portion of the report, then, since the subgroups are broken down by party affiliation but the party is not broken down by subgroup. By that I mean that the group “Liberals” is shown as “PARTY ID: 59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem)”, but that tells us nothing about how many Democrats fall into that group. So I can’t look at the 80% favoring gay marriage in that group and express it as a percentage of Democrats in total.

For more than a year now, a few us of commentors on this site have been asking — ok, blasting / slamming / harranguing / insert insult here — John to directly rebut Darrell’s comments or framing of an issue. More often than not, Darrell’s comments ultimately resulted in a queered thread that served no purpose except to annoy everyone involved.

Today, John Cole did that. He refuted Darrell’s comment directly in the comments section. Maybe he’s done it before, but this is the first time I’ve seen it. And as a result Darrell didn’t queer the thread. (So far.)

Wow. If this actually works, I think the corner may finally have been turned. And I say cheers to that! Maybe once the snark from the liberal commentators wears off at all the giddyness they feel from the blood in the water they smell for next month’s election, then this site might actually return to being the place in the political blogosphere where center-left and center-right can actually debate issues, even if a little heatedly.

After they eat dinner at a manly sports bar and maintain a large interpersonal distance in public, Dan and John will retire to their fabulously decorated apartment to compare assless chaps (chaps are assless by definition, by the way) and their Cindy Sheehan tattoos.

It must be in a different portion of the report, then, since the subgroups are broken down by party affiliation but the party is not broken down by subgroup.

Yes, although they generally do quantify the Independents as Dem/Lean Dem and Rep/Lean Rep, and show the overall percentages of which subgroup voted for which Presidential candidate in 2004. Also if you look at the Demographics, you’ll note that there are actually more Independents in the Liberal group than there are in the other Democratic groups (even though they’re all 90+% Dem/Lean Dem). Also, it is possible to download *all* the data they used, they’ve made it available…

Wow. If this actually works, I think the corner may finally have been turned.

We are just one Friedman Unit from turning the corner on defeating Darrell.

Just like Bush is calling Iraq Vietnam now. He and Tony are making allusions to the Tet Offensive. Are we all going to go wishy washy now, just when we’re on the cusp of (or a few Friedman Units from) total victory? You see, what’s been going on the last 3 years is just the equivalent of Tet.

Couldn’t we just have Stallone make a new Rambo and declare Iraq a victory?

And by the way- if anyone wants to know whether I am gay or straight or bi or whatever, the answer is simple- it is none of your God damned business.

You’re such a tease.

My view on the whole gay marriage thing is: of COURSE it should be legal. Marriage is only as sacred and stable as each individual couple makes it. If your marriage is in danger because couples you don’t even know are also getting married, then your marriage wasn’t worth shit to begin with, friends.

Look, it’s obvious, isn’t it? Glenn Greenwald is a bad person and is gay, and being gay is bad, so it’s OK to call him gay. On the other hand, Larry Craig is not a bad person, so whether or not he’s gay, you can’t say he is because that would be an insult.

exactly. and this explanation works for Mary Cheney, too!

some people grew up being taught that queers have cooties, just like i was taught that black folks and jews have cooties. my father didn’t teach me to literally bash them, instead he just conveyed the idea that i should STAY AWAY from these cootified people. because they are NOT like us normal people.

what bothers a lot of folks is that they can’t know for sure if someone is homosexual just by looking/listening. Rock Hudson was a revelation to them. so they can’t know if they should stay away. and this is deeply disturbing to them.

BTW i was NOT taught that queers had cooties because to acknowledge something as obviously perverted/disgusting as queerness would have caused my father’s head to explode.

Of course it is a tragedy that he had a brother die, alone, with no contact with his family. That is not something I wish on anyone.

Doesn’t excuse him for being a deranged bigot and homophobe, as well as just a vile puke. Hopefully he will bore with me and all my c***s****** friends and commenters and get back to the important business of finding Natalie Holloway.

Well, it’s a shame about his brother, that’s for sure. It still baffles me that he thinks Democrats are the party that wants to stigmatize gays and exclude them from society, but he’s entitled to his opinion.

John Cole has always been a Trotskyite RINO anyway. If he’s gay, it wouldn’t surprise anyone. We should send him somewhere along with the rest of those perverts. I’m sick of them contaminating America.

Well cripes, John…how dare you! Next thing, Michelle Malkin will lead the charge against you for the persecution of Dan R. and the entire right blogosphere will be in a tizzy over the newest example of how they are oppressed by homo liberals.

My advice: kill the cat, dump the wine, and bulk up….otherwise they’ll be calling you “Jennifer”…kind of like the oh-so-clever “GiGi”.

It’s true, of course, that the Democrats are worse, and if you had any doubt about that, the creepy sexual McCarthyism that we’ve seen this week would be proof enough.

That’s right, friends. Because of Mike Rogers, and various unnamed lefty blogs, we all know exactly how a Democratic majority would behave.

The Republican electoral strategy has always been to point a finger at the far left and say “you can’t let THOSE people have power!” but their heart really doesn’t seem to be in it this time. However, just to be certain, I think Nancy Pelosi should announce that Mike Rogers will not be getting any committee chairs.

Jesus Christ, that update. Even while draping his dead gay brother as a self-righteous mantle over himself, he uses the most despicable and outright cruel stereotyping language. A little self-reflection is in order for Mr. Riehl, but it’s going to hurt and should probably take place offline. What a horrorshow.

Back when I was a wee lad in the segregation-era South, statements like Riehl’s were often used to justify segregation laws and resistance to federal desegregation orders. Some fat pasty-skinned red-faced politician sweating in a suit in the Southern heat would get up in front of the crowd, and say something along the lines of, “I ain’t got nuthin’ against niggers, some of my best friends are niggers, but niggers simply gotta know their place!” If he was an exceptionally diplomatic politician, he’d use the word “Negro” instead of “nigger”, but the cheering crowd of white crackers would hear “nigger” anyhow and cheer just as loudly.

Interesting how today’s Republicans are using almost the exact same phraseology that Southern apologists for segregation used to justify their treatment of blacks in the South. Apparently gays are the new “niggers”, and “their place” is firmly in the closet…

So John Cole, it looks pretty official now. The Republican Party (or actually as I prefer to call them, the Rethuglican Leadership and the Republemming adoring masses) doesn’t want you any more. Why don’t you come on over officially and join us Independents? We are tired of the Democraps (fucking DLC) as well, but for now they are going to be a DAMN sight better than the mega-disaster we have now. I think there may still be enough Democrats left to possibly pull the party out of it’s descent, but I have seen too many party line votes on the GOP side to think there are any true Republicans left. I thought Warner, McCain, and Graham might stand up against torture, but when the spineless Democraps wouldn’t support them, they got muscled back into line.

The CORPORATE party which unfortunately the majority of both parties belong to have already led us nearly into an unbreakable fascist state where the mega corporations collect FAR more information on us than the government does and with FAR fewer constraints. The Democraps being in total control of the government as the Rethugs are now would lead to the same situation, but not quite as quickly.

The only way to fight it off is to have divided government and more regulation of those corporations. And I honestly think it is too late already, but my reaction is still to fight it. Especially when I see the Democraps vote for torture. Fucking Bastards. I told myself that was the day they pulled the feeding tube from democracy’s dying body.

I think John Dean’s 30-35% of people (and growing, sadly)who want to go back and give up the Revolutionary War and go back to King George may be the cancer which finally allows the fascist bastards to complete the takeover. Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex, and it has now nearly completed the slowest motion coup in history.

Dan Riehl’s remarks on the ‘politics’ of the matter are more than credible, even you do not agree witgh them. No amount of denial and projection can change that reality.

Riehl is more mainstream than you are- and that is what scares the hell out of you, because in the end, you can’t make Riehl into anything other than what is- a credible, middle of the road and mainstream American.

Riehl knows a truth you clearly choose to ignore or deny- that most Americans can and do get along. Every day, all over America, people on either side of the politcal spectrum live next door to each other, share BBQ’s and look out for each other’s kids and really don’t care if or where their neighbors go to worship services or not. Most Americans don’t care about their neighbors sexuality anymore than they care about their hobbies. People manage to get along, civilly and and cordially.

What scares the hell out of the agendistas of both sides, yourself included, is a truth they and you cannot abide.

You aren’t relevant. You may be entertaining, Mr Cole, but you aren’t relevant.

In case anyone wants to know why they shouldn’t vote Republican this election, aside from the rank gay-hate hypocrisy of course, check this wonderful article out in Rolling Stone. Gawd, these f*ckers are corrupt.

Riehl is more mainstream than you are- and that is what scares the hell out of you, because in the end, you can’t make Riehl into anything other than what is- a credible, middle of the road and mainstream American.

Yeah, that’s what they do in mainstream America – run up and down Main Street yelling C***S***** at each other. Oh man, you guys crack me up, constantly imagining that hundreds of millions of Americans are just like you.

Riehl is more mainstream than you are- and that is what scares the hell out of you, because in the end, you can’t make Riehl into anything other than what is- a credible, middle of the road and mainstream American.

Ok, ignoring the bizaree moonbatty psychosis…

This is an interesting phenomena. Two years ago the Republicans were willing to push gays out of the country if they thought it could get them votes. Now that they’ve got some sort of problem with teh gays all over their Congress, they are suddenly declaring they are the champions of teh gays.

Steve is right up above, we’re going to have gay marriage and it’s going to be the Republicans responsible.

Why?

Because at the rate we’re going, by next week Bush is going to be demanding Congress legalize it, just so he can run away from this latest scandal.

Riehl is more mainstream than you are- and that is what scares the hell out of you, because in the end, you can’t make Riehl into anything other than what is- a credible, middle of the road and mainstream American.

SC&A, if you think posts like the ones Riehl authors are “credible” or “middle of the road” then you are seriously fucked in the head.

Anyone who thinks Democrats are more bigoted than Republicans, esp. on issues affecting gay people, is either disingenuous or an imbecile.

Anyone who can’t distinguish between people who prey on kids (including teenagers) and people who have consensual affairs with adults, is either disingenuous or an imbecile.

The modern GOP, and particularly its braying Yahoos in the blogosphere, is so dishonest they wouldn’t know intellectual integrity if it walked up to them and coldcocked them. (Pun intended)

The Right Blogosphere has become deeply irrelevant. They can whip their dwindling membership up into a frothing rage over trivia, and they can repeat the most brazen untruths until their brains turn into tapioca.

What they can’t do is control the nation’s political agenda anymore.

They peaked with “Rathergate.” It’s been downhill to irrelevancy ever since. No wonder they’re flailing, and no wonder they’re getting more frenzied in their paranoia, rage and hatred. Paranoia, rage and hatred is all they have.

Came back, saw the update, then went over to Riehl’s World View for another healthy serving. Gee, that little rant there was special.

I was in the middle of writing a comment over there on his conservative and family values, but I deleted it before posting. I think mom would be proud. Because all snark aside, that guy’s glue is coming undone.

Upthread, I liked SC&A’s visual of a bucolic slice of Americana. Kids frolicking at sunny barbeque picnics while neighbors smile approvingly looking out for each other.

Compare that to Riehl’s warm fuzzy family. Essentially “Yeah, I had a 56 year-old brother I hadn’t seen since I was 15 and don’t care. Somewhere along the line I found out he was gay. He likely died alone in some SF gay flophouse rotting from AIDS. Fuck ‘em.”

Also liked his reasoning why he’s against gay marriage: gays don’t procreate. So I guess once a woman hits menopause no reason to be married to that bitch, right? So much for mom and apple pie. He also doesn’t like a nanny state, I guess unless it serves the purpose of making sure gays don’t marry.

You could go on with his shit in that post, but it begs the question: Where is the GOP getting these retards?

Except for that elder brother who ran away from home and died without his family: he gets to be an object lesson in tragedy and a shield of self-righteousness.

That struck me, too.

I say probably because it was the last address I ever had for him from letters exchanged, not having seen the boy/man since I was about 15.

Note that Dan doesn’t say a word about his brother after he’s done with that mention.
Questions for Dan (becuse we all know he’s reading):
Why did Robert run away? (And why to San Francisco?) If his departure stemmed from strife within the family, was it over his sexuality?
What did you, as a 15-year-old, think about this dramatic turn of events?
You acknowledge there wasn’t much contact between you and your brother. Did anyone in your family keep in touch with him?
Finally, any regrets over how it all played out? If so, over what?

Andrei, your remark is profoundly stupid. Do you have aanything credible to add?

Other Steve- Personally, I gon’t care one way or the other about gay marriage. That said, the issue is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Are you implying that I am wrong and that most Americans do not get along and are at each other’s throats? If so, based on what evidence?

Tsulagi, while we probably are not on the same side of the political aisle, I can see- and concur on your poiont re gay marriage.

Still, Riehl’s- or anyone elses’s- family situation is not meant to be anything other than a personal experience.

While it is easy to take the ‘cheap shot,’ there is hardly a family- in politics or without, liberal or conservative, that hasn’t a few episodes they wish they could make go away. Would it be fair to extrapolate political implications from those episodes?

Riehl is more mainstream than you are- and that is what scares the hell out of you, because in the end, you can’t make Riehl into anything other than what is- a credible, middle of the road and mainstream American.

This is not the Right’s shame, no matter how you’ll try to make it so. It is the Left’s disgrace. I called you a c***S***** because of the weak-kneed lip service you are providing to your most repugnant cronies on the Left. Whether or not you derive some sexual gratification from giving them that service, I couldn’t care less.

Balloon Juice? Give me a break. Don’t look now, John, but I think the balloon exploded and the juice is running from your lips. Here’s hoping you enjoyed, it c***s*****.

[…] All I know, is you conservatives are all a bunch of mean bastards, the biggest bunch of raving slavering gay bashers around, I can barely type qwerty without overwriting an enormous pile of gay bashing hate fill screed. Hell, I even have a “I HATE gays” hot button set up on my keyboard. Yeah, we conservatives are just gay hatin’ bastards, and because of that very fact the extremely principled independent conservative who hates conservatives, John Cole, is going to love voting Democratic this year in retaliation for your nastiness you gay haters. […]

I can direct you to some of the most vile, hateful, racist and anti semitic posts- all published by mainstream leftist bloggers.

Personally, the most vile, hateful, racist and anti-semitic stuff I’ve ever seen comes from outfits like the KKK, the American Nazi Party, the Council of Conservative Citizens, the Aryan Brotherhood…

But that’s just me. Tell you what, go back to your echo chamber and clutch your pearls a little while longer over Jane Hamsher’s use of blackface, cause you know, there’s no worse racism in America than what you’ll find in the lefty blogosphere. Uh huh.

I can direct you to some of the most vile, hateful, racist and anti semitic posts- all published by mainstream leftist bloggers.

Would you also call them credible and middle-of-the-road?

I don’t think you’re wrong in that the majority of Americans are just going about their day-to-day lives and are not particularly concerned with much beyond that. I’m not really sure what on earth your point has to do with the debate in question, however.

At any rate, I do think that outing is a pretty scuzzy practice. I also, however, think that it’s very ill-advised for closeted gay politicians to support policies that negatively impact the human rights of gays. And I think it’s downright scummy for politicians on either side of the fence (although it does seem to be a predominantly right-wing argument), to engender doubt and fear in the populace by telling them that the institution of marriage is under attack, because of gays wanting to marry. As I said earlier, marriage is only as sacred as each couple makes it, and for people to deny marriage to another couple because they are scared of how it might impact their marriage, is utterly selfish.

Other Steve- Personally, I gon’t care one way or the other about gay marriage. That said, the issue is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Are you implying that I am wrong and that most Americans do not get along and are at each other’s throats? If so, based on what evidence?

That’s a very good question.

I talk to my neighbors all the time.

And I’m not aware of any of them calling me a cork soaker. Maybe this is how things are in your neck of the woods, and maybe since you think it’s normal you do not equate it with people being at each others throats.

That being said, we sometimes do call our neighbors delusional maroons. I hope you don’t mind.

I can direct you to some of the most vile, hateful, racist and anti semitic posts- all published by mainstream leftist bloggers.

Whoop-di-fucking-do. So you can cite evidence that assholes exist regardless of partisanship.

Your point is?

You made the claim that Dan Riehl is “middle of the road.” How in the world is someone who write articles with titles like:

National Dems Finance Radio Hatchet Job
The Bigoted Left
A Priceless Moment In Moonbat Blogging History
Pelosi-phobia Mountz
Liberal Burial Ground Unearthed
Harry Reid’s House Of Cards Coming Down
The War Crime In Jim Webb’s Past

That was an older brother of mine, John. He’s dead and, yes, he was Gay. You want to know how he died? He died alone, probably of aids for all I know and probably in a San Francisco flop house living on the government’s dime.

Sounds like he really loved his brother. San Francisco. Flop house. Probably of AIDS. Government’s dime. If only he’d spent his own dime to find his own brother. Riehlly.

One thing that really stood out for me in that Reihlly weak rant was what Ann Coulter said about the Jersey Girls. That he is attempting to use “I love my dead gay [son/brother]” line to deflect criticism of his undefendable posistions.

I mean really, how can you criticize Dan for anything he has ever said since he has a dead gay brother he hasn’t seen since he was 15? Now I can no longer in good conscience support the right, erm, privilege, of gay people to marry or have civil unions. Because his brother died, right?

Not that I agree with Ann Coulter, but that it struck me as ironic somehow.

I can direct you to some of the most vile, hateful, racist and anti semitic posts- all published by mainstream leftist bloggers.

One thing that really stood out for me in that Reihlly weak rant was what Ann Coulter said about the Jersey Girls. That he is attempting to use “I love my dead gay [son/brother]” line to deflect criticism of his undefendable posistions.

Well…did he say he loved his dead gay brother…or just that he has a dead gay brother?

Yeah, well um, I’m pretty sure none of us would be so vile as to suggest Riehl enjoys his brother’s death.

Of course not, but I do think it’s extremely unusual that he knows the date of death but doesn’t have any idea how or where. I can give the how and where off the top of my head for every close relative of mine who has died but have to look up most of the dates.

I’m enjoying this. Not that I like to see John Cole get insulted, but the crazyness of the attacks coupled with Cole’s sharp remarks makes it highly entertaining.

Not just with this blog spat, but throughout the nation, the level of the attacks has dropped to new lows recently. Lowest in my lifetime. And yet I keep waiting for everybody to calm down and for somebody (the MSM?) to enforce adult behavior. But that never happens.

[…] Wow! There’s quite the brouhaha going on between John Cole at Balloon-Juice and Dan Riehl. John notes (and I think correctly): overt homophobia and the sickness…is Riehl’s mindset. I am sure Dobson and Rove love it. But can we please end the charade- conservative oppostion to Gay marriage and homosexual rights may be, in the minds of a few, about protecting traditional marriage. But in the minds of many, it is just like Dan Riehl- a knee-jerk reaction to fear. to which Riehl responds: That was an older brother of mine, John. He’s dead and, yes, he was Gay. You want to know how he died? He died alone, probably of aids for all I know and probably in a San Francisco flop house living on the government’s dime. I say probably because it was the last address I ever had for him from letters exchanged, not having seen the boy/man since I was about 15. […]

John Cole tries to minimize and excuse the outing of a gay Republican because according to him, based on the history of Repubs, they pretty much deserved it. In other words, it was wrong, but he can’t get worked up over it because of the Repubs opposition to gay marriage. etc.. oops, last Dem Presidential candidate advocated the same position on gay marriage.

Cole has repeatedly chastised Repubs for saying ‘Dems would be worse’ if they are given more legislative power. Yet he does the exact same thing, minimizing and excusing what the Dems did in outing Craig..

“Well, it was wrong and all for Dems to out Craig, but I can’t really condemn it because REPUBLICANS ARE WORSE”. Irony it getting pretty thick around here.

The Democrats don’t HAVE a presidential candidate, yet. So how did this fictional person oppose gay marriage?

John Kerry, the last Dem presidential candidate, publicly came out against legalization of gay marriage as part of his Presidential campaign. That’s one example why Cole is so off-base to lay this all on the feet of Republicans.. it’s bullshit and he knows it, but it plays to his new pals on the left.

Sounds to me like Riehl is asking for a real ass-whipping. he truth is that bad-asses like Riehl don’t really have the balls to do anything but attack people from behind a computer and firewall. Riehl is the real c***-S***** here.

John Kerry, the last Dem presidential candidate, publicly came out against legalization of gay marriage as part of his Presidential campaign. That’s one example why Cole is so off-base to lay this all on the feet of Republicans.

What a monster. His brother chose to lose contact with him (wonder why?) and ended up dead, and somehow that means Reihl couldn’t possibly be a bigot. Oh, and his brother “probably” died of AIDS, and “probably” was “on the government teat.” Cause that’s just what gays do, I guess. No bigotry here!

I doubt very much he died alone. He just died away from his family. That was a choice he made, and judging by the spitting hatred and contempt Reihl has for homosexuals, his brother was probably happier that way.

Just because he obviously needs therapy doesn’t neutralize the immorality. He made the choice that he would rather continue hating homosexuals than loving his brother. Fucking sick.

Of course not, but I do think it’s extremely unusual that he knows the date of death but doesn’t have any idea how or where. I can give the how and where off the top of my head for every close relative of mine who has died but have to look up most of the dates.

In my experience, homosexuals (unfortuantely) often have a story of family who kicked them out or disowned them not for anything they did, but merely for who they loved. This is the first time I’ve heard the account from one of the disowning family members – someone who thinks “cock sucker” is the ultimate insult, someone who doesn’t even know how his brother died (but is sure quick to guess), and someone who thinks he couldn’t possibly hate gays because his brother ran away from him. The face of evil, aka “family values.”

Um, the only “spitting hatred and contempt” I see for homosexuals is what is spewing forth form the left and the Democratic party.

But they are good at that, they have nothing but “spitting hatred and contempt” for any and all black people who wander off the “Democratic plantation”.

They have nothing but “spitting hatred and contempt” for any and all GLBT people who do not goosestep along with the liberals and the Democrats.

They have nothing but “spitting hatred and contempt” for our servicemen and women. They frequently show it by spitting on them and attacking them and their families.

They have nothing but “spitting hatred and contempt” for western civilization that has given them all everything they have, and for as much as they despise it they sure are not willing to put their lives where their mouths are and give up their cushy western lifestyle. Guess they don’t want to try for advocating womens’ rights or freedom or “speak truth to power” in Tehran where the mullahs would be more then happy to show them what a “theocratic dictatorship” is really like and what they do to people like them. I will give you a hint-they won’t be giving you lattes, vegan meals and WiFi. No, they will be torturing your ass in the good ol’ mideval way and killing you very slowly and at the end you will beg for death.

They have nothing but “spitting hatred and contempt” for any and all who have seen what an insane asylum the leftists and the Democratic party have become and walked away.

They have nothing but “spitting hatred and contempt” for any and all who do not bow down and worship at the altar of Our Transgendered Lady of Liberalism.

The left and the Democratic party have become what they say they hate so much. They are the ones who are acting like fascists, they are the ones practicing “McCarthyism”, they are the ones who are stifling dissent, they are the racists, the gay baiters, the jew baiters, the women haters.

They have nothing but “spitting hatred and contempt” for our servicemen and women. They frequently show it by spitting on them and attacking them and their families.

I keep seeing this, and all I can think is “Say what?”

I served during the first Gulf War with a metric shitload of Democrats. Even liberal Democrats. Amazingly enough, they were *just like the non-Democrats*.

Served with honor and distinction. Did a good job. Had pride in their service.

And you come here and effectively say that they are self-loathing? I never got that vibe from them. I’m far, far more inclined to believe you are bugfuck crazy than to believe that of my brothers and sisters in arms.

It make perfect sense…liberals hate teh gay…AND the sanctity of marraige.

Nahanni, maybe you have a different definition of “spitting hatred and contempt” than most of us? That was a lot of rant but you kind of have that “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” thing happening.

I may, when and if some of the ignorance dies down. Right now, I see no reason to put more of my life on display for certain fools incapable of mature discussion, or reason.
– Posted by: Dan Riehl

All I did was half-jokingly call you a name you earned. Congratualtions, obviously, it was well deserved [labeling (libeling?) someone a cocksucker].
– Posted by: Dan Riehl

…and compares it to a post I did on Glenn aka GiGi Greenwald some time ago, mentioning his homosexuality.
– Posted by: Dan Riehl

He died that way because of small minded assholes who think that being Gay in America is a crime.
– Posted by: Dan Riehl

How could the same person have posted all of the above? A haphazard fiction writer, or an unspeakable moster? Difficult to be certain, but reflecting on what it portrays as an unjust end of its brother (perhaps it even approved of that end, it does not make itself clear.), it remains sanguine about its casual and hurtful slurs. A vicious, vomitous, disgusting thing. Here’s hoping it is a creation of absurd, inept, unbelievable fiction.
– Posted by: mere mortal

[…] The fights they pick are not without merit, though it’s sometimes hard to decide which side is thinking about it more clearly, if anyone — and so I’ll punt and just say “follow the links”: a non-definitive summary would note that Sullivan has clashed with Glenn Reynolds and with James Taranto and become an inside joke among numerous other bloggers. Cole is currently in the middle of a blog fight with Dan Riehl, just concluded one with Red State, and before long will probably go another round with Michelle Malkin. […]

[…] Riehl World View, October 18, 2006: Balloon Juice Explodes Really, though. I don’t know how you can read that and not see the overt homophobia and the sickness that is Riehl’s mindset. I am sure Dobson and Rove love it. […]

“John Cole has always been a Trotskyite RINO anyway. If he’s gay, it wouldn’t surprise anyone. We should send him somewhere along with the rest of those perverts. I’m sick of them contaminating America.”

[…] Riehl World View, October 18, 2006: Balloon Juice Explodes Really, though. I don’t know how you can read that and not see the overt homophobia and the sickness that is Riehl’s mindset. I am sure Dobson and Rove love it. […]

[…] The fights they pick are not without merit, though it’s sometimes hard to decide which side is thinking about it more clearly, if anyone — and so I’ll punt and just say “follow the links”: a non-definitive summary would note that Sullivan has clashed with Glenn Reynolds and with James Taranto and become an inside joke among numerous other bloggers. Cole is currently in the middle of a blog fight with Dan Riehl, just concluded one with Red State, and before long will probably go another round with Michelle Malkin. […]

[…] Wow! There’s quite the brouhaha going on between John Cole at Balloon-Juice and Dan Riehl. John notes (and I think correctly): overt homophobia and the sickness…is Riehl’s mindset. I am sure Dobson and Rove love it. But can we please end the charade- conservative oppostion to Gay marriage and homosexual rights may be, in the minds of a few, about protecting traditional marriage. But in the minds of many, it is just like Dan Riehl- a knee-jerk reaction to fear. to which Riehl responds: That was an older brother of mine, John. He’s dead and, yes, he was Gay. You want to know how he died? He died alone, probably of aids for all I know and probably in a San Francisco flop house living on the government’s dime. I say probably because it was the last address I ever had for him from letters exchanged, not having seen the boy/man since I was about 15. […]

[…] All I know, is you conservatives are all a bunch of mean bastards, the biggest bunch of raving slavering gay bashers around, I can barely type qwerty without overwriting an enormous pile of gay bashing hate fill screed. Hell, I even have a “I HATE gays” hot button set up on my keyboard. Yeah, we conservatives are just gay hatin’ bastards, and because of that very fact the extremely principled independent conservative who hates conservatives, John Cole, is going to love voting Democratic this year in retaliation for your nastiness you gay haters. […]

Comments are closed.

Get Involved!

It takes just 5 minutes, twice a week:

Make a call
Send an email
Send a postcard or fax
Make your voice heard!

For both local and national numbers, recommended scripts and approaches: